A GREENOCK sheriff has acquitted a police officer who was charged with assaulting a man in his custody by throwing him into a doorframe.
James Convery, 28, was accused of pushing the man on the body down a set of stairs, causing him to strike a door to his injury.
Prosecutors also claimed that Mr Convery further injured him by later pulling him to the ground.
It was alleged that the incident took place after Mr Convery and other officers were actioned to attend a reported assault at a flat on George Street in Dunoon’s Hunters Quay at around 10:30pm on January 22, 2022.
Giving evidence before Sheriff James Varney, the constable noted that the alleged perpetrator of the assault appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
He informed him of his arrest, while in the presence of another officer, and noted the man to be ‘very, very hostile’ before taking him out to the communal stairwell.
Mr Convery, of Glasgow, said that the man walked down the stairs in front of him, and that he kept one hand on his handcuffs at all times.
He told the court: “His behaviour began to escalate and became a lot more physical. There was an increase in resistance.
“I had to stop him and tell him to stop pulling because someone was going to get hurt.
“If we were to have fallen, we could’ve bashed out head on the stairs.
“He was pulling me while I’ve got control of him within the cuffs.
“I can see myself ending up in hospital if this goes wrong.”
OTHER NEWS: Woman spared prison for double stabbing in Port Glasgow
Mr Convery said the man started to take more than one step at a time and continued to pull him down the stairs.
He claimed he used then his leg as a lever to lower the man to the ground at the bottom of the stairs.
Mr Convery added: “He was never pulled to the ground.
“I took him to the ground in a controlled manner to regain control of the situation.”
Mr Convery said he did not recall the man hitting a door on the way down and denied noticing any injury during the incident.
The court had previously heard evidence from another officer and a police sergeant regarding an injury to the complainer's eye.
Mr Convery also denied hearing the man say he wished to make a complaint against him while at the police station’s charge bar.
During cross-examination, fiscal depute Pamela Brady suggested to Mr Convery that he ‘ran’ the man into a doorframe somewhere around the first floor of the building.
He replied: “That’s a lie.”
Mr Convery contested evidence given by a fellow police officer during the trial at Greenock Sheriff Court, claiming he had lied on the witness stand.
The officer, who was present on the stairs, claimed Mr Convery had used 'considerable force' and later told senior officers he did not wish to work alongside him in future.
In her closing remarks, Ms Brady described the accused as being ‘belligerent’ in giving his evidence.
She added: “If that’s how he reacts in a court of law, I have some concerns about how he would react in the situation we’ve heard about.
OTHER NEWS: Greenock man fined and disqualified for driving offences
“The fact that he couldn’t recall or didn’t see an injury is somewhat concerning when it seems this was clear to other officers.”
Mr Convery’s defence solicitor highlighted a number of ‘significant conflicts’ in the Crown’s case, noting that the complainer recalled being punched in the ribs rather than hitting a doorframe.
He said: “These proceedings have been stressful for the accused. That will have had some impact on the evidence he has given.”
Sheriff Varney said he had 'significant concerns' regarding the complainer's evidence and concluded that he was not a credible and reliable witness.
Addressing Mr Convery, he added: “Thereafter, I am left with one police officer’s word against another’s.
“Hearing your evidence has put a reasonable doubt in my mind.”
The charge against Mr Convery was found to be not proven.
A spokesperson for Police Scotland said: “We are aware of the outcome of court proceedings.
“A report will be prepared for Police Scotland’s Professional Standards Department for consideration."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel